The Plight of the Squeezed Commuter

At Conservative Party conference earlier this month, the Prime Minister indicated that the government would make a U-turn on rail fare rises and cap them at 1% above inflation. To UK commuters, who already pay the highest rail fares in Europe and who were set to face increases of at least 6% from next January, this decision may seem like good news. However the promise will mean very little to rail companies who can still charge more on popular routes as long as the average increase settles at RPI+1%.

The coalition insisted that these fare rises are necessary to meet the costs of essential investment. However, the National Audit Office has warned that they are just as likely to boost the profits of train companies. Furthermore, of the £9bn of  'new' government funding announced back in July, half was announced under the previous Labour government and a significant percentage is due for the next Parliament and is therefore uncosted. Rail users in the UK are clearly getting a bad deal.

Rail reform could be the key to alleviating the financial pressure on UK commuters and to making the transport system more responsive to the needs of its users.

Back in June shadow transport secretary, Maria Eagle, welcomed the Rebuilding Rail report by Transport for Quality of Life as a consideration in the policy review. The report presented the case for reintegrating the operations and infrastructure arms, phasing out franchising and giving passengers, the workforce and elected local and regional authorities a greater say in the industry.

The current system guarantees private rail operators taxpayer funds if their profits fall below a fixed level. It is estimated that £1.2bn of public money has been lost each year as a direct result of the fragmented system. This money could have reduced current fares by as much as 18%. Taxpayers already subsidise the rail industry to the tune of £4bn a year – an industry characterised by mini-monopolies charging UK passengers high fares and siphoning off the profits to continental parent companies. The recent West Coast mainline fiasco and the demise of National Express on the East Coast line in 2009 have proven that the franchise system is broken and represents poor value for money for the taxpayer.

Phasing out the franchise system and adopting a more integrated system such as the one outlined by the  Rebuilding Rail report could secure better value for money and put an end to above inflation fare rises. Such a policy would be a welcome reprieve for squeezed commuters hit by higher and higher rail fares.

The Transport for London model with its publicly accountable structure on a city region basis has proven to be an effective means of running a reliable public transport system in the capital. However adopting a similar model elsewhere in the country isn't necessarily appropriate given the length of the process and its financial viability. Nevertheless, we can apply the principles of public accountability and integration to other areas of the transport system. Merseytravel in Liverpool is a good example of how the public and private sectors can work together to ensure that transport runs efficiently and responds to the needs of its users. These kind of relationships are especially important in ensuring everyone has access to public transport regardless of income.

On a national level, agreements between governments and train operators should come with more stringent conditions and an emphasis on customer service outcomes. Excessive fare rises for commuters and large subsidies provided by the government whilst the payment of premiums is back loaded is clearly not a sustainable model for the industry. The franchise system was intended to remove the need for government subsidies but we have been left with something that is expensive for the taxpayer and the commuter, but without a reliable system to show for it.

Labour's policy review is an opportunity for some of these concerns to be addressed. Ed Miliband has consistently put fairness at the heart of his leadership. On energy markets and challenging the rip-off culture, he has set the agenda, whilst coalition policies such as the VAT rise compound the pressures on working families. A programme of rail reform that delivered savings for the taxpayer and lower fares for squeezed commuters would be a logical battleground.

Reconciling Labour with Fair Trade

The Fair Trade movement and the Labour movement share near identical beliefs and aims, yet the two remain remarkably distinct from each other. Nowhere in any Labour manifesto is global fair trade mentioned, and it is down to the associated Co-operative party to fight for this issue. Global fair trade is simply not on the agenda of the party, and yet it is surely something that should be central to the party.

There is a hidden world out there, a dark world which is the base of our consumer driven Western world and without which the West could not survive. This world sees extraordinary poverty the like of which has not been seen in Europe since the 1920’s. Where men, women and children as young as five start work at daybreak, sometimes shackled to their stations in sweltering heat, have no pauses, very little food or water, must urinate where they sit over a sewing machine making clothing they can never afford for twelve hours straight for as little as £1 a day. There is no health and safety, no rights, no dignity. There is also no pension, but as most would be lucky to reach retirement age that is incidental. They do it because they must, and because those in charge can get away with it. The government don’t intervene, the employer takes the money, the rest of the world turns a blind eye to them. This is a world where life is cheap. As a social democrat (and a Christian), I cannot stand idly by. This is not necessarily a call for greater regulation but for greater monitoring and even consumer awareness and choice.

Child labourer on chocolate farm in Cote d'Ivoire; paid less than £1 an hour

Labour needs to put its full weight behind the fair trade movement and start campaigning for it. It would be beneficial for the Labour party, for the fair trade movement, but most importantly for the millions who still suffer and are still exploited with unfair wages and dangerous working conditions for our comfort.

Supporting fair trade would give Labour the moral high ground. Chinese and Indian workers are forced to work in sweat shops on meagre wages like 10p an hour, which is a pure scandal, yet not a secret. It is impossible to find anyone who would defend such a system without looking like a stereotypical Wall Street greaser. This platform means standing against big business and high profit margins, standing against the likes of Primark, Sports Direct, BHS and others while standing for the defenceless and exploited, the very people Labour stood for at inception. This also gives Labour a distinct platform which many argue it has been missing, and reconnect the party as part of an international movement against the exploitation of workers.

The benefits to the Labour party are evident, but the benefits to the Fair Trade movement are more important. By getting behind fair trade, Labour would place the fair trade movement into the mainstream and take it beyond simply informing and into a more action orientated role. There would at last be government pressure on big business to conduct trade fairly, something the fair trade movement has been missing.

The current free market system not only makes it permissible but beneficial for companies to exploit this cheap labour, which is a very small step up from slavery. This is why we oppose the free markets: not out of ideology, not because it’s an “us vs them” world, not because some mad ranted on a century ago or some hope of glorious progress of mankind – but because the system causes unimaginable suffering to millions. The free market runs on incentives; the key, therefore, is to ‘disincentivise’ through economic benefit.

There is a way out of this world, but we have to work with other nations who share our values and rewrite the rules. The European Union should set up tariffs against unethical labour to disincentivise the exploitation of human life in the name of profit. Business only knows the language of profit; by making ethical European labour cheaper than the unethical alternatives (importing the produce of slave labour in Asia), businesses, industry and manufacture will come back to Europe, and ultimately most of our goods will be produced with fair wages and conditions for workers. We can spread the values that believe in workers dignity, and it would help European employment figures while making Europe more independent from questionable regimes.

A European autarchy would make Europe productive again and do wonders to employment figures and independence, but it would also punish and dissuade unfair trade and exploitation of workers. The main point, though, is that it can be done. The EU is still the largest economic entity in the world and the biggest consumer base; business will not abandon it as many pro-free traders would argue. It is also why European nations must act together and not alone; they can abandon the UK, but not the EU as a whole as it is too lucrative, there is still profit to be made here. Even if they do leave, let them; when one company goes another will take its place.

The Green Alternatives to Globalisation Manifesto, by Michael Woodin and Caroline Lucas, suggests reforming the key provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the rules of the WTO to create a General Agreement of Sustainable Trade (GAST) which covers several reforms, but ultimately and summarily suggests that trade will be ‘regulated by fair trade rules similar to those that are currently adopted voluntarily within the fair trade movement to guarantee decent wages, working conditions, environmental standards and fair prices for producers and consumers. One way of enforcing such rules would be for a successor to the WTO to withdraw the international trading licence of any company that is found to have breached the rules’. Greens truly are a bunch of watermelons; green on the outside, red on the inside. But why wait for the successor of the WTO, why not use the EU?

There is a downside; consumables will become more expensive, which would put already suffering people under more strain to buy the essentials – food, shoes, school uniforms and so on. But we should start asking ‘how much should a t-shirt cost?’ An ‘ethically made’, fully fair pair of jeans costs $300, yet one can buy a pair for just $50. Who pays for the other $250? Milton Friedman actually noted this problem and used the example of a pencil by saying “nobody knows how to make a pencil”, because one line of production passes responsibility to the next line with no questions asked. Well, maybe it’s time to ask questions, and time for a responsible non-profit orientated body like government to at least monitor trade and implement some regulation to prevent exploitation.  

It is not revolutionary, it’s a natural progression of our movement. It is not “socialist” to believe that farmers and workers should be given a fair wage for their work – its common decency. Everyone in the line of production of an item should be paid a decent and fair wage. Consumers need to start thinking about how their commodities are made and how many people are involved, and governments should start encouraging fair trade. It is a fundamental of the Labour movement; all men will be brothers, no man should be a ‘slave’ and no man ‘master’, in our world there is to be no exploited or exploiters. That is the ideal of socialism, the true ideal of civilization. Labour can lead the way to tackle world poverty, but we must act now.

Come sta andando Italia?

Politicians and the people they represent don’t tend to agree on a whole lot. This is probably borne from the deep mistrust in politicians or any symbol of authority which politicians represent; simply put, people don’t like being told what to do. Further, everybody is under a delusion that what they think is ‘right’, so when things don’t go their way, which they often don’t, they get frustrated.

But there is one thing both politicians and ordinary people can agree on; politics is like a circus, a farce if you will. In the end, it’s all a show, particularly modern politics which is so dependent upon style over substance; it does not matter what ‘is’, only what it appears to be. Last year we saw the greatest clown of all, Silvio Berlusconi, unceremoniously bow out and be replaced by a novel form of government led under an apolitical and independent Prime Minister. Sixty two years of Italian democracy wiped out as an unelected technocratic government was installed. After eight months of a technocratic government, an uncomfortable revelation has been discovered; Italy’s technocratic government works and is working better than their democratic government.

Technocrats are more focussed than politicians. Politics is like a circus, and anyone who knows the workings of internal party politics can easily attest to that. Party insiders know all the politicking that takes place, the controversies and internal disagreements; how difficult it is to get to the top without alienating everyone. Party politics is so often the ugly side of politics. One huge advantage faced by technocratic ministers is that they do not have to serve the interests of a party or have to traverse through the quagmire of internal party politics. They don’t have to look after the interests of those who fund the party or the party members; they are not vying for anyone’s support. It is often said “no one can serve two masters”; technocratic government only serves one – the country.

Because none of the cabinet is from a political party, there is no petty ‘red vs blue’ fighting and they are free from the political bubble. It is a government without any rivals; it is pure governing. They are not trying to win votes or score points or embarrass opponents; just pure pragmatism, doing their job. Further, they do not have to look after constituents so they are more focussed on fixing a broken country during a never ending economic crisis.

Further, the lack of politics means that they carry no ‘political baggage’. Scarily enough, it is being touted in Italian papers that Berlusconi, the great clown, is planning on making a comeback. Another contender for PM is a comedian, and I’m not insulting him as he is actually a comedian, Beppe Grillo. What does he know about politics? What does he know about running a country? Will he bring the dignity the office requires? It would be like Jimmy Carr being PM in the UK. That’s the worrying thing about democracy; theoretically anyone can run the country. An even more worrying thing is people’s tendency to vote for such characters (Boris Johnson, anyone?).

When one looks at the portfolios of the technocratic ministers, one sees that it is composed entirely of independent experts who know what they are doing. A quick comparison would suffice; their foreign secretary is a diplomat, Giulio Terzi Sant’Agata, who joined the diplomatic service in 1973, once served as Italy’s permanent representative to the United Nations, headed Italy’s delegation to the UN Security Council and was Italy’s ambassador to the US. Basically, this guy knows his way around foreign affairs. In the UK, we have William Hague. Don’t get me wrong, he’s an intelligent guy, but his background and education before politics is business. Then he got into politics, making comments such as that the EU does not need to focus on constitutional tinkering while the Eurozone crisis was going on; that is precisely what is needed and what is being done. His experience in foreign affairs started as shadow foreign secretary in 2005.

Other comparisons can be made; Italy’s EU secretary is a former EU official and university professor of European affairs while the UK has a historian who rotated around various ministerial offices. The Italian minister of defence is a highly decorated naval officer and former chairman of the NATO military committee while the UK has Philip Hammond. The last Labour government managed to go through six secretaries of state for defence in thirteen years; technocracy needs no rotating door. Further comparisons show similar results. The only curious appointments are a professor of law as minister for health, and a man educated in medicine as minister of environmental protection. But under a technocratic government, unlike under a democratic one, it is more guaranteed that the heads of departments know what they are doing and are doing it right.

Mario Monti and Silvio Berlusconi could not be more different. Mr Berlusconi, for those who may have forgotten, was covered in scandal; hiring prostitutes, holding parties, having sex with anyone and everyone, inviting fellow politicians over to his mansion (former Hungarian minister caught naked there), wild misappropriation of funds, control over the media (imagine if Murdoch was PM), constant allegations of racism and nothing but sleaze. Italy was the joke of Europe. Yet in just eight months, Italy is now an integral part of the European project. Monti has brought dignity and other politicians have nothing but praise for him. Importantly, Angela Merkel is willing to work with him and his opinion is valued at European summits. Italy has become a player in Europe again; thanks to technocracy and being led by people who know what they are doing.

Maybe, just maybe, Italy is onto something here. Alternatively, given the torrential state of Italian politics, a technocratic government was right for Italy under the time and circumstance but those circumstances are unique to Italy. It has only been twenty years since Italian politics was shook to the core by corruption scandal and ties to the mafia with the ‘Mani Pulite’, which many say brought an end to the ‘First Republic’ it was that significant*. And the corruption scandals have not left Italy under the Second Republic (1992- ). While most of Western Europe was booming in the 21^st Century, Italy’s economy was staying flat while Berlusconi was busy with his infamous ‘bunga-bunga’ parties. During the crisis, the cost of borrowing soared and the government did nothing but draw attention away. Given the ridiculous and unique state of affairs in Italian politics, some respite via technocracy works for Italy but would not work where things are a little saner.

Is technocracy the next step of governance? No. For all the advantage of technocracy and flaws in democracy, it would take something pretty spectacular for the voters to allow a government to take away their right to vote. Even though we live under a veil of ‘democracy’, even the most passive would still fight for the right to vote. And here’s the problem with technocracy; what if we get a technocratic government we do not agree with? What if it does not identify the problems that need fixing, such as inequality or social injustice? What if the priorities are mistaken? Who decides?

Il Grande Pagliaccio

*To get an idea; take the expenses scandal, times it by ten, throw in more prison sentences and suicides, link it to organised crime and dissolve the main parties at the time and you might just understand the scale of what happened.

Europe: The Rushed Projects

“Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Proverbs XXIX)

People do strange things in the pursuit of visions, and when that vision looks obtainable people often try to grasp it without analysing or preparing for trouble, often to catastrophic consequences.

There have been three major projects to bring Europe together – three great and beautiful visions all implemented within the last twenty years; enlargement (political union), the Schengen zone (a borderless continent) and the Euro (monetary union). All three were possible at the time and are still possible; some consider them a natural conclusion to a long drawn out historic process. But in all three projects, the vision went ahead of the planning and the EU jumped head first, rushing them in fervent pursuit of the ideal of a unified Europe.

Hindsight is wonderful in politics; and in hindsight Italy and Greece should never have joined the Euro. Both countries failed to meet the criteria of entry, both had inexplicably high and unstable debt to GDP ratios and both had dubious accounting standards. But for the sake of the great project of European harmony and unity they were allowed in. (Out of curiosity, why is the Eurozone not suing Goldman Sachs for illegally massaging Greek finance books? Surely they are just as responsible as the Greek government).

Hindsight can also show us another now obvious truth; fiscal union must not only come with but come before monetary union. So obvious now, but the vision of a continent torn by war just sixty years earlier and divided by ideology for forty five years was too grand to let up – so the project was rushed; countries that should never have joined and failed to meet the criteria were allowed in, no provisions or risk preparation for emergencies such as the need for one country to devalue (as in Greece) was planned, no fiscal union was discussed and the accounts were not shared. The right questions were not asked in fear they would be seen as anti-European and jeopardise continental harmony.  The flawed design and rushed operation of the Euro alone did not contribute to the current state of affairs, but more planning and scrutiny could have helped the situation.

The same is true of the Schengen Zone; the vision of a Europe without borders, where citizens can go where they want without passports or border checks, the free movement of people and workers. And of course necessary if Europe is to tear down national boundaries, open up and go beyond the nation state as an entity.

But what if something happens? What if there is a flux of immigration? How does this fit in with Eastward enlargement? What if borders are needed for a short time? There were no provisions for emergency, and so when a situation came along in the form of the Arab Spring and mass migration from North Africa, a crisis arose. First it was a migration crisis, which precipitated housing and employment crises, but then became a humanitarian crisis. Thousands of North Africans flooded to Malta and Lampedusa in Italy to try and get to France; former President Sarkozy wanted to stem this flow, followed by the Netherlands and Denmark. Say what you want about immigration, but a mass influx of poor immigrants all at once in times of economic crisis strains the work market and the purse of the state.

Again, in Greece extreme measures are being taken because of the Schengen agreement. There are cells nothing short of concentration camps to stem the flow of migration from the Middle East. But again, there’s no provisions in these situations; the regional government in Flanders resorted by coming up with a humorous and somewhat controversial leaflet to Moroccan immigrants on how to behave (“Flemish people go to bed at 10PM”; “it does not rain money” and so on).

A common, borderless continent requires a common migration policy, and the realisation that the needs of one state are different to another; Eastern and Central Europe needs immigrants, Western Europe doesn’t. The vision of a Europe without borders goaded politicians to push ahead without proper planning, and the result is tragedy that betrays the values Europe was built on.

As with enlargement, the EU is over-eager to accept members and grow before countries should join, and whether countries should join at all. Between 1954 and 1991 there were only twelve members, another three joined in 1995, but then another twelve joined in 2004 (ten) and 2007 (Romania and Bulgaria); the EU's population and geography exploded in the space of twelve years, it's responsibilities suddenly built up when it was not prepared.

Cyprus should not have joined in 2004; it means Turkish membership cannot be reasonably denied on geographic terms and worse the EU has put itself head first into a political crisis that has no foreseeable solution. Cyprus is a divided nation; the northern third declares independence while the rest refuse to recognise this. In 1989, Europe saw the collapse of a wall, but in Cyprus we see the building of a new wall – and the EU drove itself head first into it.  

Malta, with a population of less than half a million, probably should not have joined; it cannot benefit anything to the EU nor gain anything from it.

Bulgaria and Romania have a natural place in the EU family. But their membership in 2007 was far too early and they should have waited at least another five years. Corruption is rife, funds are misappropriated or go missing and the treatment of Roma is questionable at best. They were not ready, the EU was not ready and now the EU has to deal with problems it could have and should have avoided. The dream of a united continent and the chance to realise that dream through Eastward expansion could not be missed, so again things were rushed ahead of time.

A lot of comparisons have been made between the EU and a boat. One recommendation I would make is Fintan O’Toole’s Ship of Fools. It’s a great comparison, the EU is like a boat; it allowed people to jump onboard and sail without the proper checks and without lifeboats. Now we’ve hit a few snags that could have been prepared for.

The best way to silence the critics is to make it work; Europe can work. There can be a continent without borders, with a common currency and with the Balkan nations in the community, but for these visions to become realised there needs to be planning and Europe needs to take its time. The dream of Europe need not be a hallucination or a nightmare, as long as it is thought out.

There is one word perpetually associated with the European project; potential. Potentially, Europe can become an economic powerhouse. Potentially, Europe can turn the tide of neo-liberalism. Potentially, Europe can dominate world affairs. Potentially, a united Europe can help its citizens. ‘Potential’ will always be the word of Europe until it starts to take its time and stop rushing into things.

“A common failing of man is to never anticipate the storm when the sea is calm” – Machiavelli.

The Socialist Revival in Europe

‘Hollande is our man’, ‘the left revival starts in France’, ‘now is our time’. Sound familiar? It is if you have been following political developments on the continent. Hollande has beaten Sarkozy and there will almost certainly be a socialist president of France which will spark a turn of fortunes in social democratic parties across the continent. With Hollande, things will be different.

Or so one reads; the reality is very different and celebrations are too preliminary. Just because something is cliché does not make it false; a week is a long time in politics. In 2010 the Liberal Democrats were scoring over 30% in the polls two weeks before the election, yet won just half of that.

There is still two weeks until the next round, and the fortunes of Hollande depend upon factors out of his control like media perception. It also depends on whether he campaign strategy; if he attacks Sarkozy or if he focuses on policy and then how that message is received. Even then, one should never really be surprised at French politics; despite the centre right’s association with the openly corrupt Jacques Chirac and Villepin they still won the presidency. I expect Hollande to win, but would not be surprised if he didn’t. But even if he did win, how much would change and would it really spark a revival in Europe?

To put things into perspective, out of 27 EU countries only four have a social democratic government. Would a PS victory really mean much? In terms of French domestic politics that depends on the much overlooked parliamentary elections in June. Politics has a bad habit of focussing on one individual; when someone thinks of French politics they think of Sarkozy, German politics is all about Merkel, Obama has total control over the USA political scene – the reality, as we know, is very different. The centre right currently have 320 seats (plus 23 from the New Right) and the left has 204 seats (plus 24 from the extreme left). It is a big ask.

Even in a wider context, what would Hollande as president and a PS majority in parliament mean? Hollande talks the talk, and wants to renegotiate the Eurozone deal. But how much of that deal was actually decided by democratic government and how much forced by the markets and IMF? How much control do politicians have over economic affairs? If the past four years are any indication then not much. Europe is at the mercy of the financial markets – and the only way out is a unified European response; no country can go it alone.

This requires all socialist and social democratic parties to work together and have a common vision with shared values; the fundamental questions need answers. Of course socialism looks different in France than in Britain or Slovakia, just as socialism looks different in urban and rural areas – there is not one absolute answer. But there are shared European values and aims.

Social democratic parties are still in a hangover from Third Way politics and are still unsure in their beliefs and aims, but it is no surprise that in Western Europe France is the first to recover as they were the first to embrace Third Way politics under Mitterrand. Social democratic parties, including the PS, still face fundamental questions; what does it mean to be socialist or social democratic, what are our aims, what kind of society do we want and how do we get there? Hollande cannot answer such questions on his own.

Something else that should be pointed out is that the social democratic revival, if there has been one, started before Hollande; Robert Fico had an amazing victory in Slovakia, a leftist party topped the poll in Slovenia, Martin Schulz was elected president of the European parliament in 2012 and let’s not forget about Denmark in September 2011. Yet the fortunes of social democracy in Europe have not changed even with the Danish social democrats holding the rotating EU presidency. So why is Hollande “our man”? Because he has the biggest mandate.

There is a false perception that France and Germany run the show in Europe, for that reason many tout Germany 2013 as the key to Europe’s soul, and again many on the left have already assumed a social democratic win. Once again, this is misguided; German politics is all about compromise and coalition and the Social Democrats (SDP) are not surging in the polls but are caught in an existential crisis. Merkel looks likely to win in 2013, with the balance of power being the Greens or, as one poll put it, the Pirate Party. But again, it should be pointed that economic policy is not made by politicians but by the markets.

Even before Germany, there is a likely election in the Netherlands, Czech Republic and Slovenia, and elections in Romania, Italy and Greece. The Netherlands is more important than France; it is not entrenched in two party politics and the prime minister is not as unpopular as Sarkozy but it is a genuine election between Christian Democracy (Verhagen), de-regulation fiscal neo-liberalism (Rutte), anti-immigration populism (Wilders) and a revived social democracy. Further, no party in the Netherlands is mired in corruption like in Slovakia and Croatia, the ruling party has not been in government for too long like Denmark, the PM is not vilified like France and their politics is not totally mad like Italy. It is a genuine election of values rather than an election of personalities like France. The result in France would not show a revival in social democratic values, but the Netherlands would.

Where next for social democracy? Not Germany, not even the Netherlands, but to the streets. The best way to get social democratic values out there is to practise them. We cannot wait and hope for a messiah like many in the USA did with Obama; he couldn’t make changes he wanted to due to outside frustration beyond his control. Social democracy is not about one man, whether that is a continental figure like Hollande or even a national figure like Miliband; it is about the hundreds of CLPs, the thousands of branches and the tens of thousands of volunteers who dream of a fair society. Any kind of socialist revival needs to come from the people; we need a unified continental vision, visions for each state, a plan and a group of people, both politicians and regular people, to carry them out. Unless socialism looks at itself hard and practises what it preaches, then this election will mean nothing.

Picture; Handelszeitung, 18/4/2012, Peter Schrank